Human society has already progressed beyond the usefulness of laissez-faire evolution as evidenced by obvious dysgenic trends. If you think about it, it makes sense: society and technology are now highly influential and dynamic over timespans that are barely a blip when it comes to evolution. There's also the fact that withholding this technology from people would effectively constitute eugenics, and in liberal democracies we tend to value peoples' individual rights in these situations.

Also humans are currently evolving to need technology to give birth due to the use of C-sections anyway [0].

I don't think it matters in the long term as you seem to believe. Within a few hundred years we'll probably have widespread genetic engineering or at least manual selection of traits. So in the short term this technology will help make people happy, and in the medium term the evolutionary effects on the human gene pool will be irrelevant.

[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38210837

Also in the future technology should become more self contained. Factories for producing any other factories should become widespread enough for technological supply chains to be ubiquitous. Let's hope that we can contain the environmental footprint as well. Ecological collapse would be the true interruption/hiccup in all this.

> Also in the future technology should become more self contained. Factories for producing any other factories should become widespread enough for technological supply chains to be ubiquitous

Isn't this a variation on the idea that the internet would render censorship obsolete and ineffective?

Having harmful genetic mutations widely spread in population is indeed a risk, but it's a problem with medicine in general, and we are not close to that point yet.

Also a common cause of infertility that this technology will be helping with, will be old age. And though not marrying when you are young is not the smartest thing from evolutionary point of view, it's not harmful genetic mutation, and there is no good reason for medicine to not help these people.

I agree, i think that the consequences of this tech, combined with advances in genome editing, are insane.

My imagination sort of goes wild with this sort of thing. You could imagine governments or companies creating clonal populations of genetically engineered humans as a captive labor force. Or wealthy individuals creating genetically enhanced "clones" of themselves, many of which would probably be horribly mutated

Most of those scenarios will probably not be possible due to regulation, and the more likely near term outcomes are actually very positive: curing monogenic (or potentially even more complex) genetic diseases for one example. I'd expect a lot of VC investment into this area in the next 5 years, and I'd expect to see a lot more articles like this as people try to prepare the public / regulators for this new technology

I think an argument could be made that we've passed a point at which technology is required for our species to survive.

We can still hunt, farm, eat, and reproduce without it, but not at present population scales. As a result any technological failure would trigger an apocalyptic Malthusian scenario that would probably climax with global thermonuclear war over remaining resources.

I'd say we passed the technological point of no return on July 16th, 1945:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)

The giant "kaboom" heard in the desert that day was the sound an evolutionary ratchet clicking. It is no longer possible to go backward without catastrophe.

"We can still hunt, farm, eat, and reproduce without it, but not at present population scales."

But isn't that a double edge? As we've scaled so has the depth & breadth of the consequences of that expansion.

I'm no Luddite. But this coin has two sides. It often feel as if we're having to reach further (and the risks increase) as one scientific solution leads to others, and so on.

I think the plain cost of all of these alternative reproduction methods will make sure that the natural method remains the most popular method for a long time.

That will certainly be true initially, but I don't think we could be certain of that over any significant period of time. Assisted reproduction may end up as cheap as a blood test is today.

What scenario do you envision where the whole species (or even large populations) wouldn't be able to have children without technology or approval?

Here's the scenario: assisted reproduction allows infertile people to reproduce. If the causes for the infertility are genetic, the genes for infertility traits will become more common. Eventually, after many, many years, they may become universal (since they stopped being barrier to reproduction). This might happen faster than expected if there's a strong selective pressure for genes related to infertility for other reasons, or the treatments prevent selections for adaptions to newer conditions (e.g. pollutants).

That second point could happen without tech.

The first point could too - modern technology has turned a number of conditions that were extremely serious in the wild into mere annoyances. Myopia, asthma, newborn jaundice, hernias, both high & low birth weight, obesity - all of these could easily be fatal if you (or your mom) needed to outrun a lion, but they're easily taken care of with modern medical technology, and hence have become extremely common in the general population.

And yet, the population isn't exploding in developed countries. This implies that something else must be receiving the selection pressure instead. I wonder what it could be?

Economic ability to pay for these medical treatments (well, in the U.S. at least), as well as all the other things needed to keep the lions away from the kids. There's a big fertility bust among what used to be the middle class, as many people don't see how they could possibly afford the necessities needed to raise a child (health care, housing, education, safe environment, parental attention) as they were raised.

(I suspect that there's also simply less selection pressure, in the sense that more people are having 1 or 2 kids, vs. in historical times where the emperor my have had 1000, a wealthy man dozens, and lots of paupers ended up with no kids at all. That has the effect of letting lots of genetic variation into the genome without immediately weeding it out, at least until some selection event occurs in the future.)

It could, but it would be a much weaker form of control that could be bypassed (by fleeing the city to the hills to reproduce freely, etc.). If you need an IVF lab to reproduce, it'd be much harder, perhaps impossible to escape the controls.